Wikipedian Darwinism: Higher Truth edits out lower-case truths

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 6, 2012

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News, Peer review}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In “Wikipedia and the Sociology of Darwinian Belief” (Evolution News & Views, February 5, 2012), David Klinghoffer recounts the true tale of what happened when an enterprising South African tried to correct a Wikipedia article to reflect the approximately 50 ID-friendly papers published in peer-reviewed journals:

As anyone knows who’s followed the popular Darwinist blogging sites, Darwinism is an ideological movement seemingly rich in believers unhindered by responsibilities to family or work or both, with little better to do day and night than engage in (usually anonymous) skirmishes on the Internet. Editing the Wiki article, our South African friend inserted references to the 50-plus peer-reviewed articles from our updated list of pro-ID scientific literature. Sure enough, within just 30 minutes, someone had erased his additions and substituted snide and again false language to the effect that:

The Discovery Institute insists that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals…. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, stating that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Rather, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lacks impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.

This is preposterous, as anyone who has looked at the list of papers would have to honestly admit. Our South African friend went a few rounds with the Wikipedia editors but, last time I checked, without ultimate success.

But, David, the sort of person who would erase the corrections without checking out the papers’ existence and substitute boilerplate talking points actually does know that he is bending or breaking the truth. And he probably feels okay with that.

Like most ideologues, he is the slave of some Higher Truth that justifies falsehoods on behalf of a lower, everyday truth – that peer-reviewed papers sympathetic to ID positions are no longer a great rarity. Indeed, it’s hard to think of one that has even been a source of huge controversy since the Sternberg affair at the Smithsonian in 2005.

Darwinism is that sort of religion. It does not attract people who prefer lower-case truths – or everyday relationships. For one thing, they probably can’t handle them.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Since the talking point is that to point to the inherent amorality and moral absurdity of evolutionary materialism is to target atheists as always immoral and to blame such for all the worlds ills
No, this is your talking point. Nobody is making this connection except you. What some of us are trying to point out is that your accusation that people you call "evolutionary materialists" promote an amoral and "morally absurd" worldview is false. But you insist on reading that as saying that you are accusing atheists of being immoral. We know you are not saying that. It's what you are saying that we are disputing. We do not think our "worldview" is either amoral or morally absurd. In fact, some of us think that many Christian "worldviews" are, viz the moral absurdity of William Lane Craig claiming that an act that would normally be a wrong, e.g. genocide, is not wrong if it is commanded by God. Moral absurdities don't come much more morally absurd than that.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Folks: Let us do an empirical test, since we know that the usual anti ID sites monitor us closely, and have a very wide audience that is literally global. (I know that though the pattern of hits on my personal blog when these sites try to play rhetorical games with what I have had to say.) CASE 1: Life 2012, 2(1), 106-134; doi:10.3390/life2010106 Is Life Unique? David L. Abel email Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics, Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc., 113-120 Hedgewood Drive, Greenbelt, MD 20770, USA Received: 17 November 2011; in revised form: 16 December 2011 / Accepted: 19 December 2011 / Published: 30 December 2011 Abstract: Is life physicochemically unique? No. Is life unique? Yes. Life manifests innumerable formalisms that cannot be generated or explained by physicodynamics alone. Life pursues thousands of biofunctional goals, not the least of which is staying alive. Neither physicodynamics, nor evolution, pursue goals. Life is largely directed by linear digital programming and by the Prescriptive Information (PI) instantiated particularly into physicodynamically indeterminate nucleotide sequencing. Epigenomic controls only compound the sophistication of these formalisms. Life employs representationalism through the use of symbol systems. Life manifests autonomy, homeostasis far from equilibrium in the harshest of environments, positive and negative feedback mechanisms, prevention and correction of its own errors, and organization of its components into Sustained Functional Systems (SFS). Chance and necessity—heat agitation and the cause-and-effect determinism of nature’s orderliness—cannot spawn formalisms such as mathematics, language, symbol systems, coding, decoding, logic, organization (not to be confused with mere self-ordering), integration of circuits, computational success, and the pursuit of functionality. All of these characteristics of life are formal, not physical. Keywords: formalism; prescriptive information (PI); sustained functional systems (SFS); functional sequence complexity (FSC); the law of organizational and cybernetic decline (The OCD Law); the formalism > physicality (F > P) principle; choice-contingent causation and control (CCCC); the cybernetic cut; the configurable switch (CS) bridge; the organization (O) principle (Note, this is a review that builds on a whole series of peer reviewed articles over about six years by Abel and co, which are referenced in it. It is across those articles that he and co build the sort of terms you will see above, in interaction with the wider research community.) CASE 2: Rumors of transcendence in physics William G. Pollard Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Institute for Energy Analysis, P.O. Box 117. Oak Ridge. Tennessee 37830 Am. J. Phys. 52 (10). October 1984 (Received 4 November 1983; accepted for publication 26 January 1984) Abstract: There are several hints in physics of a domain of external reality transcendent to three?dimensional space and time. This paper calls attention to several of these intimations of a real world beyond the natural order. Examples are the complex state functions in configuration space of quantum mechanics, the singularity at the birth of the universe, the anthropic principle, the role of chance in evolution, and the unaccountable fruitfulness of mathematics for physics. None of these examples touch on the existence or activity of God, but they do suggest that external reality may be much richer than the natural world which it is the task of physics to describe. main text begins: "At the beginning of this century, there were no hints within physics that it was going to be led beyond three-dimensional space and time in its quest for understanding the structure and behavior of the natural order. It seemed possible that physics, and science in general, would prove competent to explain any object, event, or structure in the natural world in terms of laws or components wholly within space and time. As the century has progressed, however, more and more rumors of a reality transcendent to space, time, and nature have emerged." (Oldies but goodies dept, and it sure looks like BA despite the many dismissive attacks he has faced, has a serious point.) Case 3: The Evo Info lab of Marks and Dembski, let's use the list of major articles: Bernoulli's Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II LIFE'S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle [with Erratum] Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information George Montañez, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II (Here we turn to recent work by arguably the leading ID researcher, in major part, on the issue of the source of the active info that overcomes the odds facing a blind random walk search.) Case 4: The DI list of 50. Now, let us see how the penumbra of objector sites and Wikipedia will respond to something that is as objective as objective gets. If the objectors to design of the ilk who dominate Wikipedia cannot agree that articles such as the above, at least in material part, were properly peer reviewed and published in the scientific literature as at least worthy of consideration, then we have no reason to trust them on any less easily established claims. GEM of TKI PS: Contrary to the highly revelatory phrasing that appears at wikipedia, the 2004 PBSW article by Meyer and under the editorship of Sternberg, per investigator report, DID pass "proper peer review," indeed, by "renowned scientists," and was published after revisions as suggested. What happened is that there was an obviously ill intentioned attempt to breach the walls of confidentiality, and we are seeing sour grapes, per Aesop.kairosfocus_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

News: You have put your finger on a major problem, one I have discussed in my note on selective hyperskepticism, under the descriptive rubric, the closed, ideologised mind[set]:
CLOSED-MINDEDNESS*: Stubbornly irrational, question-begging resistance to correction and/or alternative views. (Cf. a typical turnabout accusation on this, here.) This fallacy manifests itself in a habitual pattern of thought, feelings and argument that is: (a) question-beggingly committed to and/or (b) indoctrinated into thinking in the circle of a particular view or position and/or (c) blindly adherent to "the consensus" or vision and school of thought or paradigm of a particular set of authorities. [NB*: This last includes today's new Magisterium: "Science."] As a result, (d) the victim of closed-mindedness becomes unwarrantedly (i.e. fallaciously and often abusively) resistant to new or alternative ideas, information or correction. (NB: Cf. discussions on belief, knowledge, warrant and justification here, here [an excellent introductory lecture note], here, here, here, here and here [technical].) That is, it is not a matter of mere disagreement that is at stake here, but of (e) stubborn and objectively unjustified refusal to be corrected or to entertain or fairly discuss on the merits ideas or points of view outside of a favoured circle of thought. In extreme cases, (f) the closed minded person who has access to power or influence may engage in the willfully deceptive (and even demonic) practice of actively suppressing the inconvenient truth that s/he knows or should know. (By contrast, a properly educated person is open-minded but critically aware: s/he is aware of the possibility and prevalence of error, and so (i) habitually investigates and then (ii) accurately, objectively and fairly describes major alternative views, fact claims and lines of argument on a topic, (iii) comparing them on congruence to his/her real-world experience and that of others s/he knows and respects, general factual correctness, logical coherence and degree of explanatory power; thus (iv) holds a personal view that results from such a process of comparative difficulties, while (v) recognising and respecting that on major matters of debate or controversy, different people will hold different views.) _________________ * It is worth noting that it was unusually hard to find a serious, detailed, balanced and objective discussion of this key concept on the Internet; including in that well known generic reference, Wikipedia. It was therefore saddening -- but utterly revealing -- to then find the just following in that encyclopedia's discussion on indoctrination: "Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and skeptical scrutiny of one's own ideas." (This is of course precisely a case in point of diverting the naive reader from being critically aware on a significant and dangerous possibility for abusing science for indoctrination in various avant garde schools of thought that are often precisely capital examples of propagandistic advocacy, misleading or outright deceptive manipulation and indoctrination. And, given the painful and at points horrendous history of Social Darwinism, the eugenics movement and several other claimed scientific schools of thought over the past 100 years, this is inexcusable. In our day, the self-referentially incoherent and amoral worldview of evolutionary materialism often operates under the false colours of "Science," even seeking to redefine science to suit its agenda. The 2009 Climategate scandal shows through leaked materials how even leading research and international institutions are not immune to bias, manipulation of data and processing, selective reporting of findings, suppression of limitations, abuse of influence of the peer review process in Journals, Conferences and reports to suppress valid alternative views, and the subsequent indoctrination of the public through resulting deceptive iconic case studies and illustrations.)
Onward links of course can be found right there. What is most sadly illustrative of what is going on is the little bit about Wikipedia, "science" and closed mindedness:
"Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and skeptical scrutiny of one's own ideas."
As a matter of easily established fact, several of the most destructive and utterly fallacious ideologies of the past 100 years or so, were promulgated in the name of science. To name just one, eugenics --"the self-direction of human evolution" [Logo of 2nd Int'l congress] -- was embedded in Hunter's Civic Biology, the book at the heart of the infamous Scopes Monkey trial. I can bet you most people never heard of that, nor did they know that the infamous movie, Inherit the Wind materially distorts the history and substance of what went on in Tennessee all those years ago now. But, going on, over the past week or so here at UD, we have seen where advocates of evolutionary materialism -- in the teeth of descriptions, definitions and from the horse's mouth examples -- profess to be unable to recognise the dominant view in the intelligentsia and chattering classes of our time. As for seeing that a worldview (whether or no it likes to call itself science is immaterial) that posits matter, energy, space and time interacting by forces of chance and necessity as fundamental reality thus has in it no IS that can objectively ground OUGHT, and is therefore literally a-moral, that is deemed an attack on its adherents. Never mind that he real point of the argument is that even the very atheists imply by their actions that we are all under the government of OUGHT, i.e. the worldview reduces itself to self-referential absurdity and is unlivable. Of course atheists who adhere to evolutionary materialism are moral, they reflect the inbuilt candle that points to their real source, the Moral Governor of the universe! Don't even take up the onward implication that -- even though the leading advocates find it a hard-sell in their own camp (as Provine admitted in the very same Tennessee in 1998 in his Darwin Day address) -- there is no such thing as a truly free power to decide, i.e. there is no free will. That means we cannot reason or decide responsibly. Which is another direct contradiction to experienced reality, another point of self-referential absurdity. But, we have here an ideological captivity, int eh name of science and being bright and educated etc etc. So, all who disagree "must" be ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. So, never mind the actual facts that can easily be shown, there "cannot" be genuine pro-ID research papers in the peer reviewed literature, or in the informal peer reviewed literature, i.e. the world of serious-minded publishing. (Was it not Timaeus who just reminded us on how a serious publisher with a reputation as a publisher of serious books to guard, will have especially controversial books informally reviewed by weighty minds? Dr T, well said. Dead right you are.) Closed ideologised mindset, again. We could go on and on. That is why I have now drawn the conclusion that the issue has moved on. We are now in the phase of revealing the absurdity and the clinging to ideology in the teeth of sound evidence and analysis. (And, contrary to the views of many, that is where something like UD is not a backwater, but the pivotal context for the debates that are playing out. For, there is a sea change coming, and it is going to have to be fought in the forum where the ideologically locked in magisterium cannot control what is going on. this is equivalent to Samizdat of the 1970s and 80s in Russia. Guess why the Russians exiled Solzhenitsyn, when they found his manuscript? Just one little voice of truth was too much for the system!) And that is exactly where we are, in the life of this culture debate: the era before final collapse, when more and more people are going to wake up and realise they have been had. Over the next ten years, it is going to get really interesting as the powers that be desperately try to stop the crumbling dam. they are going to find they have not got enough fingers to stop all the holes, and the holes are going to eat out the dam until, one morning, there will be an almighty roar, and the proud edifice will collapse. Ten years from now, it will be over. As far as I am concerned, just looking at water, and knowing what has to go into cosmology to get us to water, and then add in C-Chemistry and Nitrogen to get us to proteins, shows a cosmos designed for life, even through a multiverse speculation. The cosmos screams design, design to have C-Chemistry, cell based aqueous medium protein and enzyme life, starting with the next glass of water you drink. Let the proud defenders of the crumbling dam of evolutionary materialism from hydrogen to humans defend themselves from water. Let them explain to us, how cell based life is not only based on water and carbon chemistry, but on CODED algorithmic digital systems and integrated self-assembling nanomachines of ast5onsihing subtlety and sophistication. Let them explain to us how body plans requiring 10 - 100 million bits of such info can arise spontaneously by empirically demonstrated darwinian and similar processes. Let them explain the origin of speech and of the cognitive, thinking mind, on similar grounds, and how that mind is credible as a knower and reasoner. And, let them explain to us, how we are bound by OUGHT, in a world that according to them has in it only ISes that cannot ground ought. I guarantee they cannot, and can predict their response: red herrings, led away to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignirted through snidely or crudely incendiary rhetoric. to cloud, choke, confuse and polarise the atmosphere. That is what drives the likes of an Aiden, which imagines it can adequately answer the Christian gospel by smearing verbal filth across it, and by presenting the Christian clergy as blood mongering vampires; inviting the projection of demonisation that then of course -- herr Schicklegruber knew this ever so well [guess who had stabbed the noble and hitherto victorious German army in the back in 1918, and then imposed the Versailles treaty that was to blame for all of Germany's ills . . . ] -- then turns the scapegoats into targets of verbal rage and worse, potentially much worse. Indeed, I am concluding that what is driving atheism in our civilisation is overgrown teenage rebellion rage mixed with supercilious contempt that imagines itself brilliant and progressive, now holding science captive. And it is that pretence that such evolutionary materialist atheism is science, and the prestige that attaches to science that then appeals to prejudice in defence of ideology. Indeed, all of this reminds me of how it was said that in the old USSR, a PhD candidate was required to present a paper in defence of atheism to show that he had the properly scientific mindset. But, as we speak, the leaks in the walls are multiplying like rabbits, and the dam is beginning to crumble. In ten years, it will all be over. GEM of TKI PS: Since the talking point is that to point to the inherent amorality and moral absurdity of evolutionary materialism is to target atheists as always immoral and to blame such for all the worlds ills, let me be direct: it is a foundational, inscripturated Judaeo-Christian teaching, that all men are implanted with the candle of God, the conscience, so we will all have the core morality written in our hearts. But, warped ideologies can undermine that and help build corrupt systems in society that hamper us from seeing and living by the right that we know or should know. This holds across the board, for ever so many systems of thought, and indeed the fundamental human problem is that we are finite, fallible, fallen and too often ill willed. All of us. Hence the sting in say Bernard Lewis' remarks that I have cited with approval and set in context here. It just so happens that the currently dominant system is evolutionary materialism, wearing the holy lab coat. But ever, it seems, "de system, de system, de system is a fraud" -- Mutabaruka.kairosfocus_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

as to:
,,, actually does know that he is bending or breaking the truth. And he probably feels okay with that. Like most ideologues, he is the slave of some Higher Truth that justifies falsehoods
Deception is so persistent, and pervasive, from many of the neo-Darwinists on the internet, that I truly would not have believed it if I had not seen it firsthand. It truly IS that bad!,,, If you don't believe me, try the South African man's experiment, and try to correct a mistake on ID on wiki;bornagain77_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply